Debates represent Sadler's last, best chance

I'm talking the two — Tuesday and Oct. 19 — between Texas U.S. Senate hopefuls Ted Cruz and Paul Sadler. They loom in importance for Sadler every bit as large as the presidential debates do for Romney, who is still trying to dig out from under his “47 percent” comments.

Texas math just isn't working out all that well for Sadler, the Democrat.

There's the money. Cruz, a former Texas solicitor general, emerged from a GOP runoff against Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst having raised almost $9 million. He started his general election campaign with about $1.45 million in the bank.

Sadler — a former high-powered state legislator — ended his primary campaign with some $30,000 left in the bank, having raised $139,000.

And it appears that the national Democratic Party is taking the attitude that there are wiser investments than in Texas, where one of their own hasn't won a statewide race in 18 years.

The conventional wisdom is that Cruz can cruise from here to Nov. 6. Money is Sadler's best bet to upset that bit of wisdom.

If he can't get over that high bar, his next best shot is to make big headlines thumping Cruz in these debates. But this also is a high bar. Not that Sadler is any slouch, but Cruz has made debate craft something of a life work.

Then there is an apparent enthusiasm gap. Some 1.1 million Texas Republicans voted in the Senate runoff, while only 235,000 Democrats did.

This points to an early defeatist attitude among Texas Democrats that might be Sadler's highest bar. A strong showing for Obama in Texas could ameliorate this, but no one I know is predicting that Texas will show up in the blue column in November.

Sadler says he is working feverishly for the money. But at this point, he's in the fourth quarter, and team Cruz has the ball at first and goal. So, that leaves the debates and hopes for an interception or a fumble. This is where he sees an opening.

“On the issues, I end up way ahead,” he says.

Yes, for a lot of folks, but, near as I can tell, Cruz's desire for diminutive government and his arch-conservatism have a history of being a fit for most red-state Texas voters. If Sadler changes this dynamic, it would represent a sea of change.

Nonetheless, he says the “stark contrast” between his views and Cruz's will spell the difference. And what gives this some merit is a presidential election that will decide between two similarly contrasting visions on government's role.

Sadler has slammed Cruz for only agreeing to two debates. I, too, would like to see more and wonder why Cruz rejected an offer for a third. But the truth is, he need not have even agreed to two.